the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 07 Feb 2023
Accounting for the effect of forest and fragmentation in probabilistic rockfall hazard
Abstract. The presence of trees along the slope and block fragmentation at impact strongly affect rockfall dynamics, and hazard as a consequence. However, these phenomena are rarely simulated explicitly in rockfall studies. We performed rockfall simulations by using the 3D rockfall simulator Hy-Stone, modelling both the presence of trees and fragmentation through specific algorithms implemented in the code. By comparing these simulations with a more classical approach that attempt to account implicitly for such phenomena in the model parameters, and by using a new probabilistic rockfall hazard analysis (PRHA) method, we were able to quantify the impact of these phenomena on the design of countermeasures and on hazard.
We demonstrate that hazard changes significantly when accounting explicitly for these phenomena, and that a classical implicit approach usually overestimates both the hazard level and the 95th percentile of kinetic energy, leading to an oversizing of mitigation measures.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1700 KB)
-
Supplement
(1630 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1700 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1630 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1521', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Mar 2023
This manuscript is very interesting and worth to be published. The effect of fragmentation and forest interaction in rockfall hazard estimation are hot topics on the subject, and this contribution elegantly clarifies and quantifies the effect of both phenomena using the well-established rockfall simulation code Hy-Stone.
I suggest a few improvements before publication.
First, and regarding the fragmentation algorithm described in section 2.1.3, I suggest a more in detail explanation of each section of the algorithm. Even though some details on how fragmentation works on Hy-Stone can be found in Frattini et al. (2012), some parts of the process are not clear. Being the quantification of fragmentation effect one of the goals of this article I suggest a more technical description of the algorithm, including an explanation of how the Yashima et al. (1987) criterion is adapted for the fragmentation threshold and the criteria used to determine the post fragmentation directions (since this may control the spreading of the model).
Second, in the analysis of Roisan event, where fragmentation played a significant role as detailed in the manuscript, it would be very interesting to show the volume distribution of the deposited fragments in the field and compare it with the volumetric distribution obtained by the model during the calibration. If the model results correspond to the field measurements, the model calibration would be more complete regarding fragmentation. In this sense, it would also be convenient to explain what initial volumes are simulated to represent the event and how that initial distribution was determined. These suggestions could be included in section 3.1 if appropriate.
Some minor comments:
Pag 5 line 133. For the calculation of the transit relative frequency when considering fragmentation, the total number of simulated paths include all generated fragments during propagation? When no fragmentation occurs this calculation looks trivial, but increasing the number of blocks during the propagation may lead to misuse of the classic approach.
Pag 7 line 214: Typo: «Figure 2Figure 2»
Pag 12 line 359: Is the sentence «From the results of hazard computation with and without fragmentation algorithm, which the hazard decreases.» correct? Can’t get the meaning.
Pag 13 line 391: Possible bullet missing.
Congratulations for this outstanding work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1521-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Camilla Lanfranconi, 18 Apr 2023
Reply to Anonymous Referee #1
First, and regarding the fragmentation algorithm described in section 2.1.3, I suggest a more in detail
explanation of each section of the algorithm. Even though some details on how fragmentation works on Hy-
Stone can be found in Frattini et al. (2012), some parts of the process are not clear. Being the quantification
of fragmentation effect one of the goals of this article I suggest a more technical description of the algorithm,
including an explanation of how the Yashima et al. (1987) criterion is adapted for the fragmentation threshold
and the criteria used to determine the post fragmentation directions (since this may control the spreading of
the model).
Thank you for your comment. In the revised version, we will add a more detailed section regarding
the Hy-Stone fragmentation algorithm and the Yashima et al. (1987) criterion adopted.Second, in the analysis of Roisan event, where fragmentation played a significant role as detailed in the
manuscript, it would be very interesting to show the volume distribution of the deposited fragments in the
field and compare it with the volumetric distribution obtained by the model during the calibration. If the model
results correspond to the field measurements, the model calibration would be more complete regarding
fragmentation. In this sense, it would also be convenient to explain what initial volumes are simulated to
represent the event and how that initial distribution was determined. These suggestions could be included in
section 3.1 if appropriate.
Thank you for your suggestions. For the revised paper, we will prepare a figure comparing the
volumetric distributions of the in-situ block size distribution (IBSD), the mapped block size
distribution in the deposit (RBSD), and the simulated block size distribution with and without the
algorithm. The figure will be added to the supplementary materials. Additionally, we will included a
brief explanation in section 3.1 about the initial volumes simulated and how they were identified.Some minor comments:
Pag 5 line 133. For the calculation of the transit relative frequency when considering fragmentation, the total
number of simulated paths include all generated fragments during propagation? When no fragmentation
occurs this calculation looks trivial, but increasing the number of blocks during the propagation may lead to
misuse of the classic approach.
Indeed, the comment is very interesting. In the calculation of the transit frequency, we use the
number of simulated block before fragmentation. This may see counterintuitive because
fragmentation can generate many blocks passing through a cell, and the value of frequency can
potentially be larger than 1 (when the number of blocks passing through a cell is larger than the
number of simulated blocks). This is correct, because this value is multiplied by the onset frequency,
which is calculated without considering the dynamic fragmentation, and therefore it is consistent
with the number of simulated blocks.Pag 7 line 214: Typo: «Figure 2Figure 2»
FixedPag 12 line 359: Is the sentence «From the results of hazard computation with and without fragmentation
algorithm, which the hazard decreases.» correct? Can’t get the meaning.
The sentence is incorrect. It will be replaced with “The results with and without the fragmentation
algorithm shows that the hazard level decreases when fragmentation is explicitly simulated”Pag 13 line 391: Possible bullet missing.
FixedCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1521-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Camilla Lanfranconi, 18 Apr 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1521', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2023
The manuscript represents a very interesting contribution to the understanding of the effect of forest and fragmentation in probabilistic 3D rockfall modelling. The rockfall model HY-STONE and the applied rockfall hazard methodology are valid and outlined clearly. However, the manuscript still lacks a bit of a clear structure, with in particular a sharp distinction between methods, results, and discussion. Furthermore, please check the required reference formatting and reference completeness text/list.
Some comments:
Line 80: please add if block volume & form are considered in Hy-STONE and how the forest/trees are included/considered in the model
Line 155: HY-STONE is capable of simulating such large volumes?
Line 214: typo “Figure 2Figure2”
line 286: typo "Rockfall Hazard"
Figures: please add the resolution of the data/simulations
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1521-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Camilla Lanfranconi, 18 Apr 2023
Reply to Anonymous Referee #2
The manuscript represents a very interesting contribution to the understanding of the effect of forest and fragmentation in probabilistic 3D rockfall modelling. The rockfall model HY-STONE and the applied rockfall hazard methodology are valid and outlined clearly. However, the manuscript still lacks a bit of a clear structure, with in particular a sharp distinction between methods, results, and discussion. Furthermore,
please check the required reference formatting and reference completeness text/list.
In the revised version, we will attempt to make the chapter division more sharp. However, the overall paper is already divided into methods, analysis and results, and discussion.
We will also check the references carefully.Some comments:
Line 80: please add if block volume & form are considered in Hy-STONE and how the forest/trees are included/considered in the model
Thank you for the comment. In the revised version, we will provide more details on how the tree impact algorithm works. The volume and shape of the blocks are taken into consideration by Hy- Stone. For both case studies, spherical blocks were simulated.Line 155: HY-STONE is capable of simulating such large volumes?
Yes, Hy-Stone simulates individual blocks and it is able to compute the volumes described in the manuscript.Line 214: typo “Figure 2Figure2”
Fixedline 286: typo "Rockfall Hazard"
FixedFigures: please add the resolution of the data/simulations
As stated in line 172, we simulated all scenarios using the 1 x 1 m Lidar DTM of Aosta Valley Region. The parameters used with the two algorithms and the characteristics of each scenario are reported in supplementary Table S1, S2, and S3. In the revised version, we will add details about the simulated volumes and the number of simulated blocks.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1521-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Camilla Lanfranconi, 18 Apr 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1521', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Mar 2023
This manuscript is very interesting and worth to be published. The effect of fragmentation and forest interaction in rockfall hazard estimation are hot topics on the subject, and this contribution elegantly clarifies and quantifies the effect of both phenomena using the well-established rockfall simulation code Hy-Stone.
I suggest a few improvements before publication.
First, and regarding the fragmentation algorithm described in section 2.1.3, I suggest a more in detail explanation of each section of the algorithm. Even though some details on how fragmentation works on Hy-Stone can be found in Frattini et al. (2012), some parts of the process are not clear. Being the quantification of fragmentation effect one of the goals of this article I suggest a more technical description of the algorithm, including an explanation of how the Yashima et al. (1987) criterion is adapted for the fragmentation threshold and the criteria used to determine the post fragmentation directions (since this may control the spreading of the model).
Second, in the analysis of Roisan event, where fragmentation played a significant role as detailed in the manuscript, it would be very interesting to show the volume distribution of the deposited fragments in the field and compare it with the volumetric distribution obtained by the model during the calibration. If the model results correspond to the field measurements, the model calibration would be more complete regarding fragmentation. In this sense, it would also be convenient to explain what initial volumes are simulated to represent the event and how that initial distribution was determined. These suggestions could be included in section 3.1 if appropriate.
Some minor comments:
Pag 5 line 133. For the calculation of the transit relative frequency when considering fragmentation, the total number of simulated paths include all generated fragments during propagation? When no fragmentation occurs this calculation looks trivial, but increasing the number of blocks during the propagation may lead to misuse of the classic approach.
Pag 7 line 214: Typo: «Figure 2Figure 2»
Pag 12 line 359: Is the sentence «From the results of hazard computation with and without fragmentation algorithm, which the hazard decreases.» correct? Can’t get the meaning.
Pag 13 line 391: Possible bullet missing.
Congratulations for this outstanding work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1521-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Camilla Lanfranconi, 18 Apr 2023
Reply to Anonymous Referee #1
First, and regarding the fragmentation algorithm described in section 2.1.3, I suggest a more in detail
explanation of each section of the algorithm. Even though some details on how fragmentation works on Hy-
Stone can be found in Frattini et al. (2012), some parts of the process are not clear. Being the quantification
of fragmentation effect one of the goals of this article I suggest a more technical description of the algorithm,
including an explanation of how the Yashima et al. (1987) criterion is adapted for the fragmentation threshold
and the criteria used to determine the post fragmentation directions (since this may control the spreading of
the model).
Thank you for your comment. In the revised version, we will add a more detailed section regarding
the Hy-Stone fragmentation algorithm and the Yashima et al. (1987) criterion adopted.Second, in the analysis of Roisan event, where fragmentation played a significant role as detailed in the
manuscript, it would be very interesting to show the volume distribution of the deposited fragments in the
field and compare it with the volumetric distribution obtained by the model during the calibration. If the model
results correspond to the field measurements, the model calibration would be more complete regarding
fragmentation. In this sense, it would also be convenient to explain what initial volumes are simulated to
represent the event and how that initial distribution was determined. These suggestions could be included in
section 3.1 if appropriate.
Thank you for your suggestions. For the revised paper, we will prepare a figure comparing the
volumetric distributions of the in-situ block size distribution (IBSD), the mapped block size
distribution in the deposit (RBSD), and the simulated block size distribution with and without the
algorithm. The figure will be added to the supplementary materials. Additionally, we will included a
brief explanation in section 3.1 about the initial volumes simulated and how they were identified.Some minor comments:
Pag 5 line 133. For the calculation of the transit relative frequency when considering fragmentation, the total
number of simulated paths include all generated fragments during propagation? When no fragmentation
occurs this calculation looks trivial, but increasing the number of blocks during the propagation may lead to
misuse of the classic approach.
Indeed, the comment is very interesting. In the calculation of the transit frequency, we use the
number of simulated block before fragmentation. This may see counterintuitive because
fragmentation can generate many blocks passing through a cell, and the value of frequency can
potentially be larger than 1 (when the number of blocks passing through a cell is larger than the
number of simulated blocks). This is correct, because this value is multiplied by the onset frequency,
which is calculated without considering the dynamic fragmentation, and therefore it is consistent
with the number of simulated blocks.Pag 7 line 214: Typo: «Figure 2Figure 2»
FixedPag 12 line 359: Is the sentence «From the results of hazard computation with and without fragmentation
algorithm, which the hazard decreases.» correct? Can’t get the meaning.
The sentence is incorrect. It will be replaced with “The results with and without the fragmentation
algorithm shows that the hazard level decreases when fragmentation is explicitly simulated”Pag 13 line 391: Possible bullet missing.
FixedCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1521-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Camilla Lanfranconi, 18 Apr 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1521', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2023
The manuscript represents a very interesting contribution to the understanding of the effect of forest and fragmentation in probabilistic 3D rockfall modelling. The rockfall model HY-STONE and the applied rockfall hazard methodology are valid and outlined clearly. However, the manuscript still lacks a bit of a clear structure, with in particular a sharp distinction between methods, results, and discussion. Furthermore, please check the required reference formatting and reference completeness text/list.
Some comments:
Line 80: please add if block volume & form are considered in Hy-STONE and how the forest/trees are included/considered in the model
Line 155: HY-STONE is capable of simulating such large volumes?
Line 214: typo “Figure 2Figure2”
line 286: typo "Rockfall Hazard"
Figures: please add the resolution of the data/simulations
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1521-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Camilla Lanfranconi, 18 Apr 2023
Reply to Anonymous Referee #2
The manuscript represents a very interesting contribution to the understanding of the effect of forest and fragmentation in probabilistic 3D rockfall modelling. The rockfall model HY-STONE and the applied rockfall hazard methodology are valid and outlined clearly. However, the manuscript still lacks a bit of a clear structure, with in particular a sharp distinction between methods, results, and discussion. Furthermore,
please check the required reference formatting and reference completeness text/list.
In the revised version, we will attempt to make the chapter division more sharp. However, the overall paper is already divided into methods, analysis and results, and discussion.
We will also check the references carefully.Some comments:
Line 80: please add if block volume & form are considered in Hy-STONE and how the forest/trees are included/considered in the model
Thank you for the comment. In the revised version, we will provide more details on how the tree impact algorithm works. The volume and shape of the blocks are taken into consideration by Hy- Stone. For both case studies, spherical blocks were simulated.Line 155: HY-STONE is capable of simulating such large volumes?
Yes, Hy-Stone simulates individual blocks and it is able to compute the volumes described in the manuscript.Line 214: typo “Figure 2Figure2”
Fixedline 286: typo "Rockfall Hazard"
FixedFigures: please add the resolution of the data/simulations
As stated in line 172, we simulated all scenarios using the 1 x 1 m Lidar DTM of Aosta Valley Region. The parameters used with the two algorithms and the characteristics of each scenario are reported in supplementary Table S1, S2, and S3. In the revised version, we will add details about the simulated volumes and the number of simulated blocks.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1521-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Camilla Lanfranconi, 18 Apr 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 210 | 80 | 16 | 306 | 33 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 210
- PDF: 80
- XML: 16
- Total: 306
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 71 | 23 |
| Italy | 2 | 42 | 13 |
| Germany | 3 | 27 | 8 |
| Spain | 4 | 17 | 5 |
| France | 5 | 14 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 71
Camilla Lanfranconi
Paolo Frattini
Gianluca Sala
Davide Bertolo
Juanjuan Sun
Giovanni Battista Crosta
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1700 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1630 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper